"Media debate on the UK's carrier programme is focusing on the jets, rather than the ships they land on. Central to this discussion is 'cats and traps', the launch and recovery system, which drives the choice of aircraft. Critics who say that this will cost too much overlook the long-term strategic value it will add...."

"As the UK government grapples with whether or not to carry out a U-turn over which variant of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF), chiefly because of issues surrounding carrier conversion costs, there are broader issues beyond technical and financial ones, and some echoes from the past...."

"...A statement on the planning round for the financial year 2012-13 starting last month has been delayed by a debate in government over whether it should revert to purchasing the F-35B short-takeoff-and-vertical-landing (STOVL) variant of the Joint Strike Fighter.

The British had originally opted for the STOVL aircraft, but the incoming Conservative-led coalition government in 2010 switched to the F-35C conventional carrier takeoff variant without properly estimating the cost of converting a new aircraft carrier, now under construction, so it could operate the F-35C variant.

Now the spiraling costs of converting one of the two 65,000-ton carriers (the other one could be sold or mothballed) to carry the catapults and arrestor gear to operate conventional fast jets has forced the government to consider changing its mind again.

Even though the move to switch to the F-35C was heavily backed by Prime Minister David Cameron, a move back to the STOVL variant is the most likely outcome when Hammond outlines planning round deliberations."

"Defence Secretary Philip Hammond has recommended the National Security Council revert to choosing the F-35B joint strike fighter for the UK's Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carriers, it has been reported....

...The F-35C was considered to be the cheaper option at the time of the SDSR, but the cost of fitting the electromagnetic aircraft launch system to just one carrier has been estimated as high as £1.8bn since...."

"David Cameron has approved a major retreat over aircraft for the Royal Navy’s new carriers, abandoning plans to buy the conventional take-off version of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.

Philip Hammond, the Defence Secretary, will tell MPs tomorrow that the Government will now purchase the jump-jet model of the plane instead, reversing one of the central decisions in the Coalition’s controversial defence review.

The Prime Minister’s National Security Council yesterday considered Mr Hammond’s plan, which will be announced to the House of Commons.

Mr Hammond will claim the decision will save hundreds of millions of pounds...

...Downing Street confirmed a statement on the carrier programme was imminent."

It'll be interesting to see how the brit's ski-jump affects the internal bulkheads of the Bee vs. the LHA/D STOVL launches. When will the Bee test flights migrate to the ski-jump at PAX? After the redesigned bulkheads are installed, how much penalty, weight gain/ payload loss, does the Bee incurr?

Until now there would have been only those potential F-35B operators such as Spain and Italy with ski jumps requiring that ski jump testing. I guess now that the Brits are back the ski jump will be in action soon enough.

Any potential weight changes are still within the KPP requirements otherwise the moaners would be all over it.

neptune wrote:It'll be interesting to see how the brit's ski-jump affects the internal bulkheads of the Bee vs. the LHA/D STOVL launches. When will the Bee test flights migrate to the ski-jump at PAX? After the redesigned bulkheads are installed, how much penalty, weight gain/ payload loss, does the Bee incurr?

Are you familiar with the 496 bulkhead? Are you familiar with the production fix? If so, how would the relatively minor difference in compression of the nose landing gear during a ski-jump STO impart more loads to the 496 bulkhead than those absorbed during a VL?

"Executive Summaryi. The short-term cost differential between remaining with the angled deck decision (SDSR 2010) and opting for ramp-fitted decks to support the STOVL variant of the aircraft is considerably less than originally anticipated (possibly less than £1.05 billion). This differential is likely to be eroded further when the true cost of ship-borne equipment and support for Ship Rolling Vertical Landings is established.

ii. A reversion to STOVL will not result in a marked difference in the date at which an initial carrier operating capability is achieved.

iii. The through life costs of the STOVL aircraft air group are significantly greater than those associated with the conventional CV variant (nearly £5 billion more).

iv. The operational capability of the STOVL ramp-fitted aircraft carrier is unlikely to be regarded as Carrier Strike and may equate to a zero capability in very high temperatures East of Suez.

v. The adoption of a ramp-fitted deck would remove the option for the future operation of other carrier borne conventional aircraft, whether manned or unmanned.

vi. In warmer climes, the STOVL aircraft will not be able to land on smaller decks/platforms in emergency because of the constraints of its power/weight ratio and consequent planned Ship Rolling Vertical Landing (as opposed to Vertical Landing) characteristics. THIS ONE ITEM NEGATES THE ONLY ADVANTAGE THAT THE STOVL AIRCRAFT MIGHT HAVE HAD OVER THE CV VARIANT."

More explanatory stuff at the URL!

The last point [vi.] seems ludicrous. If the F-35B is able to VL with KPP requirements how is that a problem if some stores are jettisoned 'East of Suez' in an emergency?

And point [iv.] ("...may equate to a zero capability in very high temperatures East of Suez.") is inane. How is it that the CVF with ramp can launch KPP requirement in 450+ feet and with extra deck length available could not launch KPP weight in hotter temperatures with 10 knots WOD? Sharkey makes a silly claim indeed. [I say 450 feet plus because the original USMC 550 was changed recently to 600 feet but no mention was made of original UK 450 feet with ski jump KPP change (not required at that time).]

I would be a lot happier if Sharkey spelt out stuff but he does not. So it is all FUD - Fear Uncertainty and Doubt mixed with a huge dollop of BLUSTER!

"Those attributes or characteristics of a system that are considered critical or essential to the development of an effective military capability. A KPP normally has a threshold, representing the required value, and an objective, representing the desired value....

...KPPs are those system attributes considered most critical or essential for an effective military capability...."
__________________

"The USMC has added STOVL performance as a service specific key performance parameter. The requirement is listed as follows: With two 1000# JDAMs and two internal AIM-120s, full expendables, execute a 550 foot [NOW 600 ft] (450 UK STOVL) STO from LHA, LHD, and aircraft carriers (sea level, tropical day, 10 kts operational WOD) and with a combat radius of 450 nm (STOVL profile).

Also must perform STOVL vertical landing with two 1000# JDAMs and two internal AIM-120s, full expendables, and fuel to fly the STOVL Recovery profile."